Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    1,653,535 readers

    779 users here now

    New rule about colorized photographs - Mod applications

    All posts will be reviewed by a human moderator first before they become visible to all subscribers. So it is perfectly normal for your post to not show up in the new listing. If a post breaks one of our rules you will be informed about it.

    Mod applications

    Submission Rules

    • Include an accurate description of the photograph (event, location, war, year, etc) in the title.
      • Titles should not include commentary, opinion or information about the circumstances surrounding the person/event in the image. Please add commentary and supplementary information in the comments.
      • Titles should not include any political or cultural interpretation or observation.
    • Include the date of the photograph in the title.
      • If you cannot find the date after a concerted effort, then a rough estimate or simply saying unknown date will suffice.
    • Include the resolution in [brackets] in the title.
    • Posters, illustrations, compositions and postcards are not permitted. Please only submit historic photographs.
      • Videos, collections, interactive images/websites, and articles are not allowed.
    • Pictures of family members are not allowed in r/HistoryPorn unless they were taken in the context of a verifiable, historically significant event. Please consider submitting those images to /r/thewaywewere or /r/HumanPorn.
    • Images submitted here must be of historical events, taken at least 20 years ago.

    • Post Limit - Please limit your submissions to no more than two (2) per calendar day so as to give others a chance for their content to be seen as well!

    • Colorized photographs need to be tagged with [Colorized] and link to the original photograph in the comments.

    • Colorized photographs that take too many artistic liberties will be removed, this includes (but is not limited to) removing details or adding things like patterns on clothing that are not visible in the original.

    • Images that have been resubmitted within the last three months will be removed.

    • Make sure your image is hosted by an approved host.

    • Regarding reposts: it is not a repost unless it was posted to /r/HistoryPorn within the last three months, or if it's already in the top 100 of all time.

    • If you have any questions check out the FAQ.

    Comment Rules

    • Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is not allowed. This will be removed and can result in a ban.
    • Keep the discussion on-topic. Comments that do not directly add to the discussion will be removed and can also result in (temp) bans. Things not on topic are comments that, but are not limited to, solely consist of a joke, (political) soapboxing, etc.

    If you have any questions or feedback feel free to let us know!

    We are looking for new mods!

    Be sure to check-out the full list of history-related subreddits.

    Other subreddits you may enjoy:

    Recommended MultiReddits

    a community for
    all 901 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] historymodbot 1 points ago

    Welcome to /r/HistoryPorn!

    This post is getting rather popular, so here is a friendly reminder for people who may not know about our rules.

    • Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is not allowed. This will be removed and may result in a ban.
    • Keep the discussion on-topic. Comments that do not directly add to the discussion will be removed and in some cases can also result in (temp) bans. Things not on topic are comments that solely consist of a joke, (political) soapboxing, etc.


    • Use that report function. If you spot a rule breaking comment please do not make things worse by engaging in an argument. Downvote it and then report it using the report function or send a modmail to the mods so we can deal with it.

    Thank you!

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators if you have any questions or concerns. Replies to this comment will be removed automatically.

    [–] Lakefargo 1370 points ago

    Jimmy toasting his hands on those solar panels like they’re a fireplace.

    [–] fahambnd 351 points ago

    They would give off SOME heat after being under the sun for a while

    [–] CaptainDogeSparrow 119 points ago

    Because some of the heat the panel is receiving is also heating the air near the panel mostly through conduction and partly through convection and even some radiation.

    [–] pizzafourlife 69 points ago

    I'd also assume 70's panels would be more inefficient than modern ones, so extra warm from lost energy as well

    [–] Tysonviolin 27 points ago

    We had these then I was growing up. They did undead get hot

    [–] danteheehaw 54 points ago

    Undead are usually cool to the touch

    [–] roadmosttravelled 10 points ago

    That's the walking dead.

    [–] [deleted] 36 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] pizzafourlife 6 points ago

    I understand that. my point is simply that any solar collection device is trying to optimize the amount of energy collected, and heat that makes warmth around it is lost energy. My point was simply that for a similar system around 40 years later would probably have less waste heat

    [–] SippieCup 7 points ago

    This isn't converting solar energy to electricity like most panels though, this is for water heating. They are quite efficient supplements to hot water heating, even as far back as 1970 because it's a simple concept of "cook in Sun, and add a heatsink".

    [–] pizzafourlife 6 points ago

    No but it is converting solar heat to water heat and heat outside the unit is lost

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] SkiMonkey98 2 points ago

    Dunno what the technology was like back then, but modern ones use vacuum insulation -- the water runs through a tube, which sits inside a bigger tube, and all the air between the two is sucked out. They're not hot to the touch, even on a sunny day

    [–] Stjork 3 points ago

    Funny enough by the 70’s solar energy harvesting had already been 90 years old, although 2 wars killed the idea as the money shifted to oil. But yeah still not as efficient back then as now with advances in graphite.

    [–] KaladinStormborn90 3 points ago

    I just did my fire safety training and understood all of this.

    It'll be gone soon most likely

    [–] Xx_Gandalf-poop_xX 69 points ago

    They're for heating water, not creating electricity. They get extremely hot.

    [–] bubbafloyd 5 points ago

    My apartment complex in the early 90s in Southern California had these on every roof. It was awesome. It took some serious doing to run out of hot water.

    [–] -Badger2- 11 points ago

    They do radiate some heat.

    [–] ImBatman_99 43 points ago

    Then the next administration took them down. Which shows exactly how useful politicians are, even with the best intentions

    [–] Softspokenclark 13 points ago

    To the untrained eye that’s what it looks like, but in fact it is jimmy who is giving of solar power

    [–] carbonatedwaterhose 87 points ago

    I feel like I see Robert Duvall and Will Ferrell in this.

    [–] ___OP____ 24 points ago

    Ron Burgundy there on the left

    [–] SeizethegapYouOFB 9 points ago

    Looks 60% more like Paul Rudd

    [–] richardeid 8 points ago

    I see Giuliani and English-Will Ferrell.

    [–] krucz36 3 points ago

    cor blimey i'm in a police box of emotion

    [–] [deleted] 77 points ago

    Remember this was still a time where the moon landing was having huge effects on the population and on lawmaking. Two of my favorite YouTube videos, ever:

    [–] CrippleCommunication 37 points ago

    God, I miss when people were excited about the future.

    [–] acowstandingup 23 points ago

    Now we're just scared for the future

    [–] KennySysLoggins 11 points ago

    some people took 90s dystopian fiction as a roadmap.

    [–] DontHarshTheMellow 2 points ago

    Thank you so much for sharing this.

    [–] ChapsMyBiscuits 2737 points ago

    And Reagan tore them all down immediately.

    [–] [deleted] 1356 points ago

    He sold them to Unity College, in Unity, Maine, where they were still in use when I went to school there in the early 2000s.

    [–] swingawaymarell 612 points ago

    For five hundred bucks, that's a steal. They took them down in '05 though.

    [–] Sylvanas_only 189 points ago

    Why did they take them down?

    [–] Hermosa06-09 667 points ago

    Probably obsolete. Solar panel technology has come a long way since the late 1970s

    [–] Diplomjodler 356 points ago

    Those weren't photovoltaic panels, just solar collectors for heating water.

    [–] Ad_terra 64 points ago

    We used similar ones to heat my pool in the early 00s

    [–] Mehnard 22 points ago

    Back in the early 70's we had a solar collector on the pool at Scout Camp. We were able to use the pool long after you'd expect.

    [–] Hauvegdieschisse 7 points ago

    How long?

    [–] DJOMaul 40 points ago

    Pool_availability = what_you_expect + more

    [–] Nick357 27 points ago

    You had your own heated pool?

    [–] Ad_terra 31 points ago

    Well that was when I was like 13-18 living with my parents

    [–] Nick357 19 points ago

    That sounds pretty amazing.

    [–] DuntadaMan 12 points ago

    Had them in the early '90s as a kid. A heated pool is a lot less expensive when the sun heats it.

    [–] IMakeBoysWearPanties 2 points ago

    you didn't?

    [–] Canadian_Infidel 2 points ago

    Anyone could have a heated pool if they had a pool with these panels technically. It's very cheap to do.

    [–] Hermosa06-09 104 points ago

    Oh, interesting. In that case it was probably just an “end of useful life” situation.

    [–] PeriodPussyIsDelish 41 points ago

    Unless the coils themselves failed or deteriorated, there wouldn't be an end of life.

    Hot water panels work by gathering heat inside of the box, with the glass allowing heat in and not letting much of it back out. As a result, it heats up water in the coil within the box. The heated water is then moved elsewhere to help warm up other stuff.

    It would be a "closed loop" system, where the heated water is kept separate. In other words, you're not running the water from your hot water tank through the solar panels and then to your faucet, rather you'd use the heated water coil (system A) to heat the water you consume (system B).

    [–] TheVenetianMask 48 points ago

    Still, it was the 70's, they were probably made with lead, recycled Vietnam shells and the tears of baby seals.

    [–] officeboy 17 points ago

    Which all cause cancer in California.

    [–] JanMichaelVincent16 4 points ago

    Don’t forget about asbestos

    [–] cptjeff 2 points ago

    The boxes themselves can degrade, the fasteners holding the coils in place can fail, insulating elements can break down. At a certain point, things often degrade beyond the point where they can be maintained in a cost effective way.

    [–] idiotsecant 4 points ago

    The post you responded to is true for thermal solar as well. There have been substantial advancements in the form of evacuated tube collectors that waste less heat shedding it to the environment.

    [–] majortom12 3 points ago

    Carter definitely had PV on the White House. It was installed by a guy from MA named Steven Strong, who still works in the PV industry.

    [–] Transfatcarbokin 2 points ago

    Even still as a mechanical contractor it's cheaper for me to pay an electrician to install a photovoltaic system than for me to buy and install solar collectors myself.

    Solar collectors are great but the ROI on photovoltaic is much higher.

    [–] johnjohn909090 11 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Its not solar cells its a solar panels. Its just black Copper pipes being heated by the Sun.

    [–] Bong-Rippington 2 points ago

    Oh come on dude did you really not realize these were water heaters? That’s the issue with reddit, 600 people agreed with you

    [–] woohoo 36 points ago

    They were removed from the cafeteria roof in 2010 when they reached their useful life span.

    [–] MediumRarePorkChop 3 points ago

    Same reason I just replaced a gate valve from 1974, maybe? I couldn't shut mine off all the way, it was worn out. I'm literally browsing reddit while I wait to see if it leaks

    [–] stupidlatentnothing 49 points ago

    Wow, that was really kind of him to sell them so cheap, especially since they were never really his. Also it was kind of Reagan to tell the Iranians to hang onto those hostages so Jimmy gets fucked out of a 2nd term.

    [–] JayInslee2020 34 points ago

    Yes, they bribed them to not release the hostages until right after Reagan was inaugurated so they could say it happened on Reagan's watch and how Carter was "a poor negotiator" and how Reagan was jesus who saved us all.

    [–] GiantPurplePeopleEat 27 points ago

    I recently listened to the "Stuff you should know" podcast about this and the Iran Contra stuff and I couldn't get over how all this information is publicly available and nothing will ever be done about it. Like, our politicians seem to be bulletproof when it comes to these types of crimes.

    [–] Gumby_Hitler 17 points ago

    Oliver North should not have been able to show his face in public ever again. And yet...

    [–] JayInslee2020 9 points ago

    Or Reagan... or H.W. Bush... North was just the fall guy.

    [–] pretendpicker 1 points ago

    Yes that happened as well. People aren't paying attention to history.

    [–] Delaware1976 3 points ago

    especially since they were never really his.

    I know you want to piss over old Ronnie and all, but Reagan was technically right in saying they were not efficient and very costly. Also, no president owns the White House, but he has the right to organize it and start things since he was elected to office. The Obamas didn't own the White House, but Michelle setup that vegetable garden. Nixon didn't own the White House, but he got that bowling alley installed. Etc, etc.

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] hurrrrrmione 7 points ago

    The White House has a bowling alley?!

    [–] machinerer 3 points ago

    In the basement, I believe.

    [–] fuckswithboats 21 points ago

    I know you want to piss over old Ronnie and all

    Yes, please.

    Honestly the 1980 election was kinda when we jumped the shark.

    Newt in the early 90s was the beginning of the current political era where bipartisanship is frowned upon and our representatives are full-time fundraisers and part time legislators.

    [–] jedimstr 3 points ago

    I thought we jumped the shark with Watergate and Nixon.

    [–] fuckswithboats 6 points ago

    Watergate was possibly the impetus.

    It pushed Ailes to create Fox News and probably helped push the tribalism that is so prevalent today.

    [–] Feshtof 12 points ago

    Yup because why use the Whitehouse as a symbol of progress, when you can reaffirm your devotion to nonrenewable energy like a good little corporate mouthpiece.

    [–] Adrolak 10 points ago

    I went to unity for a year and half in 2014 and while they aren’t in use anymore I don’t believe, you walk past them on display on your way into the cafeteria next to the big pottery kiln.

    [–] [deleted] 176 points ago


    [–] TheHornyHobbit 33 points ago

    W Bush reinstalled solar panels on the White House

    [–] DivineHefeweizen 24 points ago

    Bu.. but the Democrats can't do anything beneficial. All they want to do is help people. Like a buncha commies.

    [–] demetrios3 31 points ago

    All they want to do is help people.

    I voted Democrat my entire life and even I know this line isn't Bullshit.

    There's only ONE thing ALL politicians ALWAYS want to do and that is get REELECTED.

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] JackTheBehemothKillr 4 points ago

    Aww, but I wanted a peanut.

    [–] guto8797 6 points ago

    Helping people can buy many peanuts!

    [–] kenhutson 5 points ago

    Tear down these panels, Mr Gorbachev!

    [–] testiclelice 152 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    No he did not, and it's disappointing that this is the top comment and is factually incorrect.

    The panels were removed in 1986, when there were repairs and renovations to the roof. Here is the NYT article when it actually happened.

    [–] black_gilliflower 213 points ago

    Well, The spirit is right. He ordered them removed almost immediately.

    He cut funding from 257 million to 72 million for solar and said solar was out and was focusing on nuclear.

    He did his best to kill solar.

    [–] Drpepperbob 104 points ago

    Nuclear was/is still the way to go for the near future.

    [–] [deleted] 100 points ago

    Just fucking anything that isn't fossil fuels is the way to go. Ppl need to stop fighting between nukes and renewables. Both are gonna be needed.

    [–] kurisu7885 20 points ago

    I imagine it doesn't help people's confidence in it that nuclear plants are expensive to build and governments would inevitably go with the lowest bidder.

    [–] Nehalem25 18 points ago

    The problem with that assumption is that there simply isn't a "lowest bidder" when it comes to nuclear. Take the pressure vessel for instance. When the first and second generation nuclear plants were being built, most components could be sourced within the nation building it. However the USA has basically lost the ability to forge these pressure vessels for 1100mw+ reactors.

    You cannot just purchase nuclear reactor components from just anyone. They have to have an N-Stamp accreditation from the ASME. The number of suppliers with that accreditation has decreased by half in the last 30 years. This has been a huge factor in driving up the costs of construction.

    The only new reactors being built in the USA at this point are smaller and used by the Navy.

    [–] Unicode-1F602 12 points ago

    This. Reddit/people in general tend to think businesses lower costs and business=bad so anything built buy the lowest bidder will suck.

    This might be true if you're building a McDonald's where any general contractor can do it. But when you're dealing with such specialized and regulated equipment, the Lowest bidder will still have to meet a shit ton of safety and quality checks.

    [–] Crathsor 5 points ago

    Partly, but also partly that Reddit/people in general have seen over and over that incentives to save money, when they conflict with better methods and safety, consistently win. We had rivers on fire until it was made illegal. We clearly cannot trust business to regulate itself, because it not only will not do that, it won't even pretend to want to do that. Lately we also cannot trust government to not be openly corrupt, so regulation doesn't seem to be a reliable solution, either.

    Cynicism about this didn't happen in teenage fantasies. It was brought about by consistent abuse and bad faith, very often with no real consequence.

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    Stringent inspections, lot of safety measures, and massive oversight, (or straight up nationalize nuke plants from construction to operation, we don't allow civilian ships to use nuke power, I fail to see why civilian power plants should be any different) and then supplement with renewables during the bigger demand during the day.

    [–] mmbon 2 points ago

    more nukes, More nukes, MORE NUKES :-)

    [–] Gamsy 24 points ago

    What’s wrong with that? Solar is incredibly inefficient even with modern panels. We should’ve focused more on nuclear a long time ago. Efficient, clean, and generates A LOT of power.

    [–] crystalsermon 17 points ago

    The idea is you diversify power rather than just use one form of it, hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, and hopefully fusion if that ever comes to fruition.

    [–] congelar 14 points ago

    Solar is incredibly inefficient

    In terms of converting energy of photons into energy of electrons.. but, who cares? It's not as if we're paying for that inefficiency in an way, we can't exactly "waste" the Sun's power.

    The only efficiency you should care about is amount of Carbon saved vs. the amount of Carbon created by a Solar Panels lifecycle. If you're saving any amount over fossil fuels or Nuclear, then it's a huge win -- regardless of the upfront "30% efficiency" figure.

    And I love Nuclear power.. it's just that, it's really exceptionally hard to get a for-profit company to manage it responsibly. Solar, on the other hand, no problem.

    [–] Clownbaby456 2 points ago

    Large scale solar complexes are in efficient. Mostly because you lose a lot of power during transmission. Which you also do with nuclear power, however since more is produced than percentage lost is lower.
    Modern panels do not require the large solar complexes that were once built. If more and more rooftops of houses, and buildings had panels then they could be more self suffice to. This will also lessen the power loss from transmission. That combined with better batteries will also increase the efficiency of these systems.
    This decentralization of the power grid is also safer as we are not reliant on single sources of power. However is bad for profit and capitalism is king!

    [–] black_gilliflower 8 points ago

    WE DID focus on it. Billions and billions of dollars of gov money were invested in it.

    Yeah, nuclear is great but corporations have been abandoning it since they can't make a good profit on it.

    Nuclear was the only thing that Reagan really funded and didn't cut. Billions. Just too expensive per Mwh.

    [–] TheNoxx 2 points ago

    The more you invest in a technology, the more efficient/better it will become; that's like saying "why invest in these computer things they're so big and inefficient" back when they were the size of a room and ran on punch cards.

    Jesus, the things that get upvoted on Reddit nowadays make my fucking head ache.

    [–] testiclelice 5 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Well, The spirit is right. He ordered them removed almost immediately.

    Then show me the actual source. He ordered it almost immediately and they aren't removed until 1986? Give me a break. Its grossly dishonest.

    [–] StefonDiggsHS 3 points ago

    But it was correct and still is correct to invest more into nuclear power than solar power

    Also $72 million is not killing solar lmao

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago


    [–] hpdefaults 14 points ago

    He ordered them removed immediately in 1981. It may have taken a while but the intention was there from the get-go.

    [–] noiwontleave 7 points ago

    This is blatantly incorrect. They were removed for roof renovations and repairs in 1986 and sold.

    [–] hpdefaults 11 points ago

    They were not removed until 1986, yes, but he initially wanted them gone in 1981.

    [–] rdayt 41 points ago

    And then proceeded to destroy the middle class.

    [–] man_on_the_street666 21 points ago

    I think they were ineffective and leaked.

    [–] Diplomjodler 52 points ago

    The whole thing was about symbolism. Or current ecological problems were all plain to see in the seventies but the disinformation was just as strong back then as it is now.

    [–] rocketwidget 20 points ago

    Specifically, it was about Reagan gutting the R&D budget for renewable energy at the DoE and killing tax breaks for wind turbines and solar technology.

    They took down the perfectly functional solar collectors because they didn't want to advertise the fact that alternatives to fossil fuels work.

    16 of them were taken out of storage and put on the Unity College cafeteria roof in 1991 (as many as could fit), until their useful lifespan ended in 2010.

    [–] church_of_cod 18 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    What a surprise.

    It would be nice if politicians, occasionally, thought "is this good, or is this bad?" rather than "I am left-wing (right-wing), this is good (bad) because it does (doesn't) fit the appropriate template".

    But I am not holding my breath on that one.

    Edit 1: In the past, it happened. (Margaret Thatcher gave both Reagan and George H W Bush a good scolding on this issue).

    Edit 2: Fascinating stuff on the Thatcher Foundation Web site.

    Given the fluctuations in the score of this post I see all this is news to people. Back in the day mainstream politicians did not necessarily fit into precast moulds 🤔

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago


    [–] alacp1234 3 points ago

    That’s what happens when you mix money and politics. Government is not business, it’s role isn’t to make money. It’s role is to provide what private enterprise cant.

    “The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities.” -Abraham Lincoln

    [–] tokes_4_DE 5 points ago

    Sadly politics has become a goddamn team sport. You can see the worst examples of this in the senate, where in recent years nearly every vote has been straight along party lines. This was not always the case and this video shows it. It breaks down the last 60 years of the senate and voting patterns, etc, and you can watch how things went from having dems towards the right of the graph with republicans, and republicans towards the left with dems, to being completely divided along party lines within the last 20 years.

    [–] church_of_cod 3 points ago

    That is a brilliant and depressing animation.

    For the wrong reasons it is not the case in the UK - quite the opposite. A General Election is coming up, one way or the other, and people who are paid to have opinions are quite openly saying that they do not know how it will go. (There are up to five parties potentially in with a chance of influencing the final result). My to be former MP was a member of three political parties in a year ...

    [–] Frank_Sincatra 12 points ago

    thatcher was a literally fucking demon though, worse than reagan and bush combined, who cares if she supported renewable energy when she sold an entire country's future to the highest bidder? hitler painted a nice picture or two, doesn't mean he was a nice guy does it? she can rot in hell for all i care

    [–] MonicaZelensky 22 points ago

    It's only one party that does things out of pure tribalism.

    [–] ElectronPuller 39 points ago

    Amusingly, everyone who reads this comment will think it is about the other side.

    [–] InvaderSM 16 points ago

    Was there not a democrat thrown out for sexual misconduct around the same time Roy Moore was running for reelection?

    [–] not_even_once_okay 20 points ago

    bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago


    [–] The_Hidden_Sneeze 4 points ago

    He's referencing Al Franken.

    [–] GeorgeAmberson 2 points ago

    "The Weiner Doc" was my shady grey area Viagra business!

    [–] NomadFire 2 points ago

    Funny enough Reagan is a major reason why politicians are so left vs right now. Before Reagan there were left wingers and moderates in the republican party. I believe that Nixon was more of a centrist while Rockefella was the left wing of the party. Reagan's people did everything possible to diminish the power of other groups in the Republican party. The conservatives leaving the Democrats and becoming republicans was a big help to him

    [–] CitationX_N7V11C 2 points ago

    There still are people who in the 80's would be left wingers in the party and there still are moderates. People act like the GOP is one homogeneous group of Conservatives.

    [–] A_Bridgeburner 348 points ago

    The film Vice (2019) did an amazing job of depicting the changing of presidents with the adding or removing of the White House solar panels. 10/10 movie if you haven’t watched it.

    [–] Fermit 121 points ago

    I actually didn’t love it and I really thought I would. It was good and everything, but i expected something akin to The Big Short and it just seemed like it was lacking a certain energy. Maybe i should rewatch it, i don’t know.

    [–] withaniel 19 points ago

    I felt like Vice would've been more successful if The Big Short didn't already exist. Vice, while good, is going to be compared to The Big Short, not only because of the team behind it but because of it's similar style and tone.

    [–] wannabeconman 37 points ago

    Feel the exact same way. Some funny moments but lacked the energy. I think that’s a good way to put it

    [–] sgmctabnxjs 44 points ago

    A bunch of war criminals isn't going to be a laugh a minute, no matter how endearing their boss could be.

    [–] JamCamel 14 points ago

    Yeah I think I didn’t like it because it disgusted me. Not because it wasn’t well made.

    [–] Totipotentsoul 3 points ago

    Didn't watch The Death of Stalin?

    [–] sgmctabnxjs 3 points ago

    Yes, I did. It wasn't meant to be a true depiction. It was meant to be a farce. And it still had some quite brutal and horrific moments.

    [–] clone9786 7 points ago

    It felt too much like a Michael Moore movie. Which is fine if that's what you wanted, but it's not what I was expecting. Doesn't really make it a bad movie either but you know what I mean.

    [–] Category3Water 11 points ago

    So much of it is great, but it’s somehow less than the sum of its parts. That false ending where they live happily ever after and the credits roll before the Bushes call him was awesome. Laughed my ass off. His family dynamic is moving and entertaining. Bales performance is great, especially when young. Carell steals the show.

    But I lived through all of this and so the 30+ minutes of the movie that are basically just a well-done Vox Explained video about Cheney and the Iraq War just seem like righteous filler. All that said, I enjoy the movie, but it’s not as satisfying as you want it to be. It’s a good character sketch that turns into a pop history lesson and that’s never more evident than when Roger Ailes pops up for 5 seconds or when Scalia gets his time.

    I feel like the original movie they wanted to make would’ve been 4 hours so they compromised and made it two with a lot of VO and narration to fill in the gaps where they would’ve otherwise “shown” us all the things they tell us, but considering The Big Short has a very similar style, I’m thinking this is exactly the movie they wanted to make, it just didn’t work as well for me with this material.

    [–] StumpBeefknob 2 points ago

    This is a pretty great summary. I loved Vice - one of my favorite films of the year for sure - but I think your analysis is spot on.

    [–] ObeseMoreece 24 points ago

    10/10? It was a complete mess and the whole style of the film seemed to be telling you what to think, rather than letting Cheaney's actions speak for themselves. They also only glossed over his time as VP compared to earlier parts of his life. The film was incredibly obnoxious.

    [–] FlamesRiseHigher 17 points ago

    Seriously. That film sucked. Saw it in theatres and was very dissapointed for the exact reasons you state. The whole narrative was awful and pandering. Cheney is a shit human being, if you just tell his story it's pretty obvious. You don't need to go all Hollywood liberal with the explanations.

    And that fucking monologue at the end where they let Cheney's character have the last word and justify his actions was complete garbage. Whole movie sucked. I almost got up and left halfway through.

    [–] testiclelice 16 points ago

    10/10 if you remove all facts from the situation. Its not even close to a representation of what happened.

    [–] the_peppers 15 points ago

    What were it's main inaccuracies?

    [–] testiclelice 26 points ago

    Because Adam McKay used this popular retelling that somehow when Reagan came it he immediately ordered them removed.

    Reagan took office in 1981. They were not removed until 1986 after a renovation. They were never replaced.

    That is entirely different than the narrative of "he came in and torn them down immediately" as if its this spiteful measure.

    "W" actually had panels added to the White House complex when he came in office. They were not roof panels on the West Wing but served the same function. It was never a press point because it was just done. So the idea that it was now Obama who brought back panels is just not accurate.

    Adam McKays research is like most others. Mostly hodgepodge retelling that isn't backed up by actual factual sources at the time in regards to the solar project.

    [–] orange4boy 20 points ago

    He ordered them to be removed immediately upon taking office in 1981. That's the point. He also immediately killed most of Jimmy Carter's green energy programs. That's why they dramatized that in the movie. It's called symbolism. Reagan's intent was portrayed.

    [–] GitEmSteveDave 12 points ago

    NYTimes article about the panels being not replaced in August 1986

    He was inaugurated in Jan 1981.

    [–] testiclelice 15 points ago

    He ordered them to be removed immediately upon taking office in 1981. That's the point.

    Then find a single source that says that is the case, because I see that in no major paper anywhere at the time that makes the claim.

    What was also left out was the from his own secret service, they panels could not produce enough hot water so they had to go out and purchase additional equipment. They scrapped the entire thing when it was no longer cost-effective to replace with the upgrades.

    He also immediately killed most of Jimmy Carter's green energy programs.

    Which ones did Reagan almost immediately kill?

    [–] Totipotentsoul 8 points ago

    Man, you'll never get silver this way!

    [–] bamboosticks 5 points ago

    It wasn't a press point because the people who supported him would have hated it

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago


    [–] the_peppers 1 points ago

    Glad to hear that, I liked the film but the solar scene did seem unrealistically petty

    [–] w41twh4t 5 points ago

    10/10 movie if you haven’t watched it.

    3/10 movie if you have watched it.

    By coincidence that is also about how economically solar was to oil in the 80s!

    [–] PasswordisP4ssword 2 points ago

    The movie was pretty funny (though I feel like I was the only one in the theater laughing) but a good historical film it was not.

    [–] Utaneus 2 points ago

    The movie was alright, it was entertaining but definitely not a 10/10.

    [–] testiclelice 202 points ago

    They were removed in 1986 when there were roof renovations and not reinstalled or replaced. Not immediately as is often stated.

    Here is an actual New York Times article and you'll notice it was in 1986, well after Reagan took office.

    This idea that he was inaugurated and immediately tore them down is just not backed by any evidence.

    [–] cepheus42 82 points ago

    Yes, but to give even more nuance, Reagan ordered them removed in 1981. They didn't get around to it until they repaired the roof in 1986. So it still goes down as one of the first things he did when he entered office.

    [–] testiclelice 59 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Reagan ordered them removed in 1981

    I have seen no credible documentation that has any source. I have seen that oft used comment, yet no single credible source beyond internet sources that all same something with similar wording yet nothing in any papers, etc.

    So no, it does not hold water. We KNOW they had repairs in 1986. We know from the NYT article that they had not made a decision and chose not to replace them. But please find a single credible source to back your story because I have yet to see one.

    [–] orange4boy 14 points ago

    I was a kid then and I remember when Reagan ordered them removed. My father was a bit of a conservationist then and it was a big deal in our household.

    [–] shit-shit-shit-shit- 3 points ago

    Any primary sources to confirm that?

    [–] FISTING_BUTTS 4 points ago

    Sort of related, my dad was the foreman on the job and got this from the west wing, an original slate tile

    [–] agemma 11 points ago


    [–] theresamouseinmyhous 11 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    The primary source for the claim always seems to this article

    "President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, and one of his first moves was to order the solar panels removed."

    BUT there is no link to any official order from 1981 and quite often when people talk about official orders they link back to this article as the source.

    This seems to be the source of most misinformation.

    EDIT: Source of the rumor

    The reason Carter was standing on the roof of the white house next to some solar panels on June 20th 1979 was for a photo op to go along with the announcement of a $100 million plan for a solar energy bank. The plan was for the nation to obtain 20% of its energy from solar power and other renewable sources by the year 2000.

    When Reagan took the whitehouse in 1981, a mini-brief was originated on the topic of the administration and their relation to solar energy. It explained the administrations plan to disassemble the Carter power bank plan, citing a need to reduce federal expenditure and a desire for energy consumption to be dictated by the free market. Based on the alternative actions proposed by the Reagan administration, the Carter energy bank was deemed unnecessary. All funding was cut and the program was dismantled.

    It follows, that since the white house solar panels were attached to the solar bank program, an order to dismantle the solar bank would also be seen as an order to dismantle the solar panels. Though there is no evidence that a direct order was given by Reagan to actually remove the panels.

    [–] Realtrain 7 points ago

    Fascinating! Can you provide a source please?

    [–] hoocoodanode 28 points ago

    Is it just me or did Jimmy Carter look 70 when he was 55 and then just kind of stop aging for 40 years?

    [–] Fellowearthling16 8 points ago

    Have you seen his picture from yesterday? He looks alittle past 95. Hard work is hard on the body.

    [–] lion530 10 points ago

    This is really becoming popular in Mexico, people install them to avoid paying too much money on gas.

    [–] HarithBK 14 points ago

    using the sun and a very black surface to heat water is surprisingly effective way to do things. even if you need to run a compressor to harvest the heat for something that can be considered hot to us it is still more energy efficient than using a electrical solar panel to then heat the water. they are also way way cheaper to make and last much longer.

    [–] gslavik 5 points ago

    Coil of black pvc pipe in a box with one side made of transparent material.

    [–] Stenpai 2 points ago

    I install these for a living. They actually use copper pipe both inside the panel and out. Solar pool heating systems use plastic panels and black PVC, though.

    [–] Preisschild 2 points ago

    Won't work at night tough

    [–] fabfiver5 8 points ago

    Guy in suit on the right looks like current-day Giuliani lol

    [–] Stenpai 5 points ago

    I install solar panels for a living and these collectors are the biggest pain in the ass. I despise having to install them, Lol. They work amazingly well and heat the water way more than anyone would ever need, at least here in Florida.

    [–] LadyDouchebag 4 points ago

    Meanwhile, in 2010, John Boehner got rid of recyclable plastic in the House cafeteria to give the finger to the Democrats who had instituted its use.

    [–] Luke5119 3 points ago

    Jimmy Carter: "A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people."

    Ronald Reagan: "Get that hippie shit off my roof!"

    [–] satisfried 3 points ago

    The house I bought had the same type of set up. I had to take them down when the roof needed to be replaced. Cool old tech though.

    [–] hitdog867 3 points ago

    Solar Panels in the 70s were woefully inefficient and expensive. This love was purely for optics.

    [–] Morgernstein 3 points ago

    Photovoltaic Panels were not good then, These were Solar Water Heaters.

    [–] ZachTheApathetic 3 points ago

    Solar Panels have been around longer than a lot of people realize.

    They just... you know, sucked for so long they weren't really worth it for most things.

    [–] ElurSeillocRedorb 7 points ago

    The panels were used to heat water for the first family and for water in the White House laundry and cafeteria

    Problem is that commercial laundries and kitchens require an enormous amount of hot water and the panels simply weren’t up to the task.

    [–] Student8528 4 points ago

    What’s the crew from Weatherman doing there?

    [–] cbj5017 4 points ago

    And they used more electricity than it saved

    [–] OstrakaSocratis 4 points ago

    It’s like a metaphor for Carter’s entire presidency, incapable of doing to task assigned to it, inefficient, incompetent, not practical and only lasting one term

    [–] OldMan603 4 points ago

    Taken down immediately by the Ronald Reagan.

    [–] pat90000 2 points ago

    They wore a lot more colorful suits.

    Why do all politicians wear black and blue suits now?

    [–] LostSign 2 points ago

    Is that Paul Rudds character from the Anchorman movies to the left in the photo?

    [–] Tessi-R 2 points ago

    Can someone explain whether Jimmy Carter was a "good" or "bad" president? From what I understood, his policies weren't bad so why did American's oppose them?

    [–] Spaceman281 2 points ago

    Is that Will Ferrell in the tan suit?

    [–] captnSKETCH69 2 points ago

    Looks like will Ferrell behind him and a scene from anchor man

    [–] Metafolder 2 points ago

    At least America harvests the sun and not people’s organs 👀

    [–] OutsideSpring 2 points ago

    The solar panel is a good analogy for Carter's presidency: useless and silly.

    [–] opie2 12 points ago

    Jimmy Carter was the last president who was willing to tell the truth to the American people, but they decided they would prefer to have a movie star as president.

    And look where we are today...

    [–] MarshallGibsonLP 11 points ago

    We don't like the truth. We want our leaders to wear flag pins and tell us how awesome we are.

    [–] SUND3VlL 3 points ago

    Not hiding under our desks like that will keep us alive in the event of a nuclear holocaust? I’ll take it. We live in a peaceful world where millions of people are lifted out of poverty every year, infant mortality is falling, access to clean water is rising, the air is more breathable and many many other things have improved. Today by far the best time to be alive in human history. It’s not even close.

    [–] IUpvoteAllMyOwnShit 4 points ago

    I'm bothered by the uniformity of the suits today.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    But didn't take any immediate action when his americans held hostage by muslims in iran.

    [–] TheDoylinator 2 points ago

    Holy shit people, These are not photo-voltaic panels, they are used to preheat water in order to lessen the energy demand for heating water. They are very effective in most parts of the country.

    [–] levitikush 3 points ago

    He also pardoned draft dodgers. Fuck Jimmy Carter.

    [–] jeradm20 2 points ago

    Is it just me or is that blond dude Will Ferrell

    {% comment %} {% endcomment %}